WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINANCIAL MELT DOWN

[JeffIsHereToo]

Jeff, I do not know how this thread went from the economy to the civil war and I am not going to analyze the different posts. However, I take exception to your reckless remarks that I was in error when we discussed the civil war in general and Arlington Cemetary in particular. You stated I have so many errors and cannot be trusted to check my facts. If I am in error re Arlington Cemetary then so is the official web site of Arlington Cemetary.

 

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/historica...gton_house.html

 

I realize you are in over your head when you attempt to argue American history. I have studied the American Civil War for 50 years and have an enviable library of materiel. In addition to college level courses on the American Civil War. This does not always mean that I am infallible but I do know more than the average person when it comes to American History and the American Civil War.

 

You don't have to apologize but you can buy me a O;Doul's someday and I will counter with buying you a Sharp's or other non-alcoholic beverage of your choice. For me it might even be a tall ice water with lemon.

 

You can be a pleasure to debate. Not always.

 

Have a good day.

 

 

Ok...ONE MORE TIME:

 

You said:

 

"This link is of the same video but is routed through Canada. Everyone in America needs to see this before it

is yanked off the Internet again!"

That is not the case the video is on and hosted on the US YouTube site there is no "routing" going on.

 

You said:

"First the North considered the issue a riot or rebellion."

 

That's pretty general statement but the formal signed Presidential document, not a book, not news reports, the original source and basis for the action where it is repeatedly called an insurrection. In fact Lincoln didn't just use the word "insurrection" once, but many times in many proclamations throughout the course of the war. Others can call it what they will but the President's proclamations use the word "insurrection".

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocu...ncolnhabeas.htm

http://blogs.phillyburbs.com/news/bct/on-t...f-insurrection/

http://www.civilwar.si.edu/timeline.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=ap7oeq8Id...num=3#PPA333,M1

 

You said:

"When the North invaded Virginia they seized the Lee homestead and turned it into a cemetary."

 

No that began to happen three years after the home was seized. At first the home was respected but then used and abused. Forts were built and later when grave sites ran short they started to use the land. BTWW: I don't agree with what was done, and think it was wrong, but your statement males it sound like they "invaded" and said, "here's a good place for a cemetery!".

 

http://www.nps.gov/archive/arho/tour/histo...inbetween4.html

http://www.nps.gov/archive/arho/tour/histo...inbetween2.html

 

You said:

 

"The North stated the land was seized as the spoils of war."

 

No, the estate, without due process was taken for back taxes.

 

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/arlhouse.htm

 

You said:

After the war, and the reconcilliatio, the lee family asked for their home to be returned.

 

I will use your own reference:

 

"Neither Robert E. Lee, nor his wife, as title holder, ever attempted to publicly recover control of Arlington House.

 

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/historica...gton_house.html

 

 

You said:

"It took almost a 100 years of court wrangling for the US government to be forced to pay the Lee descendants the value of Arlington."

 

Again I will use your own reference:

 

After Gen. Lee's death in 1870, George Washington Custis Lee brought an action for ejectment in the Circuit Court of Alexandria (today Arlington) County, Va. Custis Lee, as eldest son of Gen. and Mrs. Lee, claimed that the land had been illegally confiscated and that, according to his grandfather's will, he was the legal owner. In December 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, returned the property to Custis Lee, stating that it had been confiscated without due process

 

On March 3, 1883, the Congress purchased the property from Lee for $150,000.

 

Now when I took math 1870+100 years would make this about 1970? Not 1883!

 

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/historica...gton_house.html

 

 

Someone seems to be WAY WAY over their head and it's not me!

[stormeaston]

You said...................he said.

[JeffIsHereToo]

You said...................he said.

 

 

Yeah, this is silly....I'm REALLY done this time.

 

[69dejavue]

You said:

After the war, and the reconcilliatio, the lee family asked for their home to be returned.

 

I will use your own reference:

 

"Neither Robert E. Lee, nor his wife, as title holder, ever attempted to publicly recover control of Arlington House.

 

True. Robert E. Lee did not wish to further hard feelings and did not go back to Arlington. He was willing to forego Arlington. He moved to what is now Washington and Lee University where he became president of the college. He is buried on the grounds of Washington and Lee University. However; his son Custis Lee did ask for the property and was refused. Custis is definitely a member of the family, actually the immediate family. So a member of the Lee family did ask for the home to be returned. He battled all the way to the Supreme Court and won. The federal government had to pay him for illegally taking the Lee family home. I am sure what influenced this decision, lack of due process, was the malice that was used.

 

Quote from the Arlington National Cemetary web site:

 

Arlington was for many years the estate of Colonel Robert E. Lee. Lee had graduated at the top of his class at West Point and had faithfully served his nation as an Army Officer throughout the Mexican War and then in Engineering and Cavalry assignments throughout our young nation. At the onset of the Civil War, after first refusing the command of all Union forces, he volunteered his services to his home state of Virginia. During the course of the war, his former estate was seized by the Union Army, which made it a headquarters. In 1864, with Union dead piling up throughout the Washington area, [i]the search for a suitable site for a military cemetery resulted in a recommendation from Major General Montgomery Cunningham Meigs (the Union Quartermaster General) that Lee's former estate be converted to a burial ground. Meigs, a Southern native, had remained loyal to the Union and reportedly hated Lee for his service to the Confederate cause. Out of the death and destruction of the Civil War, and from this personal hatred, was born Arlington National Cemetery. [/i]The Lee family would once more exercise its claim to the land, ultimately winning a battle in the Supreme Court, which issued a decision essentially charging the federal government with trespassing on private property.

 

Would the dead have to be dug up and transferred to a new site? The possibility was there, but General Lee's son diffused the crisis in 1883 by accepting a payment of $150,000 from the government, and Arlington Cemetery as we know it now was established.

[DDT]

 

You are "PERSISTANT"!!!!!!!!!!!

[69dejavue]

You said:

"First the North considered the issue a riot or rebellion."

 

That's pretty general statement but the formal signed Presidential document, not a book, not news reports, the original source and basis for the action where it is repeatedly called an insurrection. In fact Lincoln didn't just use the word "insurrection" once, but many times in many proclamations throughout the course of the war. Others can call it what they will but the President's proclamations use the word "insurrection".

 

 

Jeff, what is the difference between a rebellion and an insurrection? And as I previously schooled you the term rebellion was used in at least two different names for the Civil War. Perhaps your liberal icon Klinton can parse words but come on.....trying to turn a debate on the difference between rebellion and insurrection?

[DDT]

I think School is OUT my "FRIEND"????????????

[69dejavue]

Poison- did you find any errors in the message. If not, then school is truly out.

[DDT]

Poison-

 

Knock yourself out with "SELF CHECK"??????????

[turnsignaldelete]

I think School is OUT my "FRIEND"????????????

Now, Please 'School' DDt, on the , problems associated with Obama/Socialism/Marx/Communism.

 

But on the other hand, DDt as a Conservative/Republican/American/Loving/Patriot would be;

 

????????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????????

?????????????? ??????????????

??????????????? ??????????? ?????????????????

[DDT]

"#1 FORUM JERK"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[turnsignaldelete]

"#1 FORUM JERK"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

THANK YOU, I'M HERE ALL WEEK !!!!!!

[STLShelby]

After reading this whole thread, it's clear to me that President Lincoln caused the financial meltdown.....

[Boss Doctor]

 

This thread has been hijacked!

 

[JeffIsHereToo]

After reading this whole thread, it's clear to me that President Lincoln caused the financial meltdown.....

 

 

See! We've come full circle!

 

It was the Republican Administraion...just a little earlier than I had thought...but still! !

 

[69dejavue]

And George W. Booth shot Lincoln. Yea, right.

[69dejavue]

See! We've come full circle!

 

It was the Republican Administraion...just a little earlier than I had thought...but still! !

 

 

 

Well, all the libs defend Lincoln for invading a sovereign country, ignoring the constitution, etc. And he was a Republican!

[DDT]

So your saying Lincoln was a "REPUBLICAN COMMUNIST"?????????

[69dejavue]

So your saying Lincoln was a "REPUBLICAN COMMUNIST"?????????

 

 

No, never said that. Unless you can point to a specific post.

[DDT]

Well, all the libs defend Lincoln for invading a sovereign country, ignoring the constitution, etc. And he was a Republican!

 

"Lincoln was a Republican" and "invading a sovereign country" is what "Communists Do"???

[69dejavue]

I plead guilty to saying Lincoln was a Republican. And yes Lincoln did invade a sovereign nation without authority in the Constitution. And yes Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus which was unconstitutional. But not every country that invades another is communist.

[JeffIsHereToo]

Lincoln did invade a sovereign nation without authority in the Constitution.

And yes Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus which was unconstitutional.

 

Sounds like another Republican President I know!

 

 

History does repeat itself!

[69dejavue]

Sounds like another Republican President I know!

 

 

History does repeat itself!

 

Jeff, maybe being exposed to learned opinions on this site is starting to rub off on you. So, do you agree that Lincoln invaded a sovereign country (the Conferderate States of America)? Did he have the authority to do so under the Constitition? Did he have authority under the Constitituion to use deadly force against the seceeding states? Were his acts constitutional?

[JeffIsHereToo]

Jeff, maybe being exposed to learned opinions on this site is starting to rub off on you. So, do you agree that Lincoln invaded a sovereign country (the Conferderate States of America)? Did he have the authority to do so under the Constitition? Did he have authority under the Constitituion to use deadly force against the seceeding states? Were his acts constitutional?

 

 

I didn't say that, but I didn't not say that either, but where word games are concerned I was told "any two can play"!

[DDT]

As it has been proven many times here............

[turnsignaldelete]

WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINANCIAL MELT DOWN ???

THE FACTS

 

DDT, and that's a , "FACT"

 

:tease: :tease: :tease: :tease:

 

:hyper2: :hyper2: :hyper2: :hyper2: :hyper2: :hyper2: :hyper2:

[DDT]

Sorry I cannot accept this honor.........

 

More "DILLUSIONAL FACTS"!!!!!!!!! O well just consider the source????????

 

Now if I was one of the "CORRUPT CORPERATE BANKERS" that "SUCKED UP" the first

"HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS" dollar bail out with no accountability than TSD would be on to something

[KingCobra666]

Jeff, maybe being exposed to learned opinions on this site is starting to rub off on you. So, do you agree that Lincoln invaded a sovereign country (the Conferderate States of America)? Did he have the authority to do so under the Constitition? Did he have authority under the Constitituion to use deadly force against the seceeding states? Were his acts constitutional?

 

The South attacked Fort Sumter, an act of war on the USA. If the CSA was a Soveriegn power, as you say, Lincoln had every right.

 

Civil War is not really covered in the Constitution, it was an extra-Constitutional crisis. If it was an insurection he had the right to put it down. If the CSA was a nation, it attacked the USA first.

 

Heres all you need to know: Fighting for your right to own other people is a morally bankrupt idea.

 

Thats NOT a right. Not then, not now, not ever. If you want to glorify them as some freedom fighters your deluding yourself. Hey the Nazis were fighting for their rights to live without Jews! Its ugly, twisted, BS.

 

Incidentally, Jeff is right, Lincoln considered it an insurection. I saw a show on Lincoln the other night and in his letters he says it constantly. He did not recognize the CSA as a nation.

 

 

KC666

[Boss Doctor]

The South attacked Fort Sumter, an act of war on the USA. If the CSA was a Soveriegn power, as you say, Lincoln had every right.

 

Civil War is not really covered in the Constitution, it was an extra-Constitutional crisis. If it was an insurection he had the right to put it down. If the CSA was a nation, it attacked the USA first.

 

Heres all you need to know: Fighting for your right to own other people is a morally bankrupt idea.

 

Thats NOT a right. Not then, not now, not ever. If you want to glorify them as some freedom fighters your deluding yourself. Hey the Nazis were fighting for their rights to live without Jews! Its ugly, twisted, BS.

 

Incidentally, Jeff is right, Lincoln considered it an insurection. I saw a show on Lincoln the other night and in his letters he says it constantly. He did not recognize the CSA as a nation.

 

 

KC666

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter

 

Fort Sumter is a Third System masonry coastal fortification located in Charleston harbor, South Carolina. More accurately for the time, it's located in Carolina; not in the North.

 

 

On December 26, 1860, five days after South Carolina declared its secession, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie and secretly relocated his two companies (127 men, 13 of them musicians) of the 1st U.S. Artillery to Fort Sumter without official authorization or obedience to orders from Washington[1][2][3][4]. He thought that providing a stronger defense would delay a Rebel attack. The Fort was not yet complete at the time and fewer than half of the cannons that should have been available were not available due to military downsizing by James Buchanan. Over the next few months, repeated calls for the United States evacuation of Fort Sumter[5] from the government of South Carolina and later Confederate Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard were ignored. United States attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war prevented the steamer Star of the West, a ship hired by the Union to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task. After realizing that Anderson's command would run out of food by April 15, 1861, President Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships, under the command of Gustavus V. Fox, to attempt entry into Charleston Harbor and support Fort Sumter. The ships assigned were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reinforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.), armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats with added protection against small arms fire to be used to tow troop and supply barges directly to Fort Sumter.[6][7] By April 6, 1861 the first ships began to set sail for their rendezvous off the Charleston Bar. The first to arrive was the Harriet Lane, before midnight of April 11, 1861.[8]

 

Sounds like an invasion of a sovereign nation by a rogue Union Major to me!

 

"Heres all you need to know: Fighting for your right to own other people is a morally bankrupt idea." I certainly agree with this statement: however, there were MANY reasons for the war, and this was one of them. If a territory of free people can join the United States of their OWN FREE WILL, then they certainly can leave it of their OWN FREE WILL. There is no clause in The Constitution of the United States that says differently.

[69dejavue]

The South attacked Fort Sumter, an act of war on the USA. If the CSA was a Soveriegn power, as you say, Lincoln had every right.

 

Civil War is not really covered in the Constitution, it was an extra-Constitutional crisis. If it was an insurection he had the right to put it down. If the CSA was a nation, it attacked the USA first.

 

Heres all you need to know: Fighting for your right to own other people is a morally bankrupt idea.

 

Thats NOT a right. Not then, not now, not ever. If you want to glorify them as some freedom fighters your deluding yourself. Hey the Nazis were fighting for their rights to live without Jews! Its ugly, twisted, BS.

 

Incidentally, Jeff is right, Lincoln considered it an insurection. I saw a show on Lincoln the other night and in his letters he says it constantly. He did not recognize the CSA as a nation.

 

 

KC666

 

 

You are of course correct on some points. Slavery is absolutely wrong. Wrong then, wrong now. And Lincoln did consider the secession an insurrection or rebellion. But if the South was a sovereign nation then the only way Lincoln could attack was if congress had declared war which they had not. And if the South was a sovereign nation what justification did Lincoln have to invade?

 

Did the constitution give Lincoln the right to invade a sovereign country to burn, pillage, plunder and rape. To burn libraries, hospitals, schools homes, killing livestock and burning crops in the field?

 

There was nothing in the constitution to prevent secession. Go ahead and search. Scholars have for over 140 years. The south seceeded and was forced back into the union at gun point. Lincoln preserved the Union but it was a union that did not wish to remain a union. The country, as a whole, is better off having preserved the union. But we have no idea how the world would be today. Certainly the world would have changed. Would there have been a Spanish American War in 1898? How would WW I have ended? Would there have been WW I? If the treaty of WW I caused WW II, would there have been a Second World War? Korea? Viet Nam? Pearl Harbor?

 

All points for discussion.